Bookies' odds simply reflect how people are betting. If more people bet that remain will win then the odds on remain winning shorten and those on leave winning lengthen. They don't really say anything about how people will actually vote only about how people think other people will vote.

I need to make a correction to my original statement. Of course the odds aren't based on the "number of people" betting one way or the other. The odds are based on the "amount of money" bet one way or the other. I was just looking at some figures that strongly suggest that far fewer people are betting on remain than on leave but the amount of money those people are betting is higher. My original statement is only true if, on average, the size of each bet is the same. The bookies odds reflect the amount of money they stand to lose whichever result comes in. The referendum result, however, depends on the number of people who vote each way. The odds, therefore, do not give any real guidance on the result.

I don't think it will be as close as some predict, remain have always had the edge as when it comes down to it people generally don't want to come out of their comfort zone especially the older generation. Yes we Brits like a good moan but generally fall in line. However, I do believe the UK will be going down the wrong road and will pay for it.

I agree with moggieman. I'm pushing sixty and out of all the people I've spoken to, mostly in the age range 45 to 65, fully 90% say they will vote to leave. My younger brother was for staying in but I changed his mind. (Gave him a chinese burn !)

Kilkis wrote:...I agree with you, Phaedra, but I also think the result will depend on turnout. If the turnout is high then remain will probably win and if it is low then leave will probably win. No guarantees on that...

Looks like I got that one wrong. At 72 % the turnout was quite high considering that there was some seriously bad weather around some areas of the UK. I believe that is 72 % of those who registered to vote not 72 % of those who could have been eligible to vote if they had registered but it is calculated on the same basis as a general election. It was more than the last 4 general elections so must be regarded as high. Despite that the Leave side won 52:48.

While I was firmly on the Remain side at least I can console myself with the huge increase in prosperity that I am going to experience. May you live in interesting times

Kilkis wrote:While I was firmly on the Remain side at least I can console myself with the huge increase in prosperity that I am going to experience. May you live in interesting times

Nobody will know for years whether the result either way might have been for better or worse. If 'Remain' had prevailed the other EU members might have viewed the UK as a weak member of whom they could take advantage. Alternatively, they might have decided that the UK was the saving of the club and used the rules to benefit the UK. Whichever direction might have been chosen would provoke unknown reactions.

The long term consequences of 'Leave' winning the vote are also unknown. Until any event has happened the best we can do is guess as to what might happen. At this stage whose guess might be right is anyone's guess

But the Leave campaign have told the UK electorate that it is going to be so much better out of the EU. Who am I to doubt the Leave campaigners. They didn't say it might be. They didn't say they didn't know. Everything Leave promised is a cast iron certainty. They said so loudly and often. Surely you don't doubt the pronouncements of the side you supported, Filippos?

The Leave campaigners told me that, free of EU constraints, they could negotiate beneficial trade deals with the rest of the world. When remainers said it could take years and years to negotiate trade deals the Leave campaigners told me that was rubbish. You could negotiate deals in a couple of years. Surely they wouldn't have lied to me would they? I am sure I can look forward to trade deals being signed with a large number of non-EU countries in the next two to three years. I cannot wait to see what India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand etc are so desperate to buy from the UK? I am sure we can look forward to the Current Account deficit being wiped out and becoming a surplus in no time at all. Golden times ahead.

You have (had ?) the ridiculous situation, where if you wanted to employ a Nuclear Physicist / Brain Surgeon / Cancer specialist, from somewhere like Canada or USA, you cannot do so unless you also consider / interview another candidate from an EU country (maybe even every EU country - not 100% sure of the rules)

Many years ago Canada used to have similar rules that a Canadian company could only appoint a foreign national if it could prove there was nobody suitable in Canada for the job. Firms had a cunning way to circumvent this rule. They would place a general advert in countries where they thought there might be suitable candidates. When they received applications they would interview promising candidates in their own countries. Once they had selected the candidate they wanted and he/she had accepted the job they would take the CV of that candidate and write a highly specific job advert including every experience on that CV as a requirement. They would then publish that advert in the candidate's own country and across Canada. The candidate would then formally apply. Typically nobody in Canada would have that exact experience so nobody in Canada would apply. The company could then go to the government explaining that they had only found one foreign candidate who met their exacting requirements and nobody from Canada had applied. I know personally someone who was appointed in this way.

Personally I have only ever appointed the person who I thought was best for the job irrespective of race, creed, colour, ethnicity, gender or sexual preference. I didn't always get it right but that was simple error not any form of bias.

Warwick

PS I would be interested to know under which EU regulation the condition of having to consider EU nationals first is specified. As far as I am aware non-EU citizens apply to the UK government for a work permit. I believe such permits are issued at the discretion of the UK government on a points based system. I think this is an area where the UK government has complete control.

Last edited by Kilkis on Fri Jun 24, 2016 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kilkis wrote:But the Leave campaign have told the UK electorate that it is going to be so much better out of the EU. Who am I to doubt the Leave campaigners. They didn't say it might be. They didn't say they didn't know. Everything Leave promised is a cast iron certainty. They said so loudly and often. Surely you don't doubt the pronouncements of the side you supported, Filippos?

The Leave campaigners told me that, free of EU constraints, they could negotiate beneficial trade deals with the rest of the world. When remainers said it could take years and years to negotiate trade deals the Leave campaigners told me that was rubbish. You could negotiate deals in a couple of years. Surely they wouldn't have lied to me would they? I am sure I can look forward to trade deals being signed with a large number of non-EU countries in the next two to three years. I cannot wait to see what India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand etc are so desperate to buy from the UK? I am sure we can look forward to the Current Account deficit being wiped out and becoming a surplus in no time at all. Golden times ahead.

Warwick

But wasn't it the leader of the remain campaign, Cameron, who said the UK would prosper outside the UK, before he reformed it of course.

scooby wrote:...But wasn't it the leader of the remain campaign, Cameron, who said the UK would prosper outside the UK, before he reformed it of course.

Cameron said the UK would still prosper if it left the EU but it would prosper more by remaining. All the economic predictions, apart from those made by Vote Leave, said the same thing. Only Vote Leave said that the UK would prosper more by leaving so, since they won, I am looking forward to my increased prosperity.